Advances in the nanotechnology industry and related economic rewards are being questioned from the perspective of potential health effects associated with exposure to nanomaterials. Some suspect the slowing of the financial investment in nanotechnology may be related to the potential health risks. Higher quality health risk assessments can be facilitated by capturing engineered nanoparticles and differentiating them from naturally occurring counterparts.
As the nanotechnology industry expands, there is growing concern among scientists, policymakers, and consumers regarding the health and safety impacts that nanomaterial proliferation may exert on humans and the environment. For example, if a certain nanomaterial exhibits altered physiochemical behavior, it may also exert unknown and unpredicted effects within the environment or the human body. While the debate regarding such effects has yet to be resolved scientifically, there is some evidence supporting the increased toxicity of nanoscale materials. Additional concerns with nanoparticles include their ability to cross tissue barriers and translocate to different areas of the body. For example, inhaled nanoparticles have been shown to undergo extra-pulmonary translocation into the systemic circulation, with subsequent deposition in peripheral tissues.
Methods for nanoparticle speciation are useful because biogenic (e.g., sea salt) and anthropogenic (e.g., diesel soot) nanoparticles often outnumber airborne concentrations of engineered nanoparticles, even in locations where engineered nanoparticles are being produced and handled. Consequently, an exposure assessment that distinguishes engineered nanomaterials from biogenic and incidental nanoparticles can be useful, especially if the goal is to investigate environmental health and safety impacts resulting from exposure. Current nanoparticle measurement methods using only direct reading instruments (DRI) typically do not include nanoparticle identification.